A representation about the 'purpose' of an act under s 348(2)(e) of the Criminal Code need not be explicit; it may be implied from the entire tenor of the accused's words and conduct. The fraudulent representation need not be the sole cause of the complainant's consent — it suffices if it plays a substantial (more than trivial) part in obtaining consent. Where a material representation calculated to induce consent is made and consent is in fact given, the jury may infer the consent was obtained by the representation. The legislative renaming of digital penetration from indecent assault to rape was not intended to increase penalties.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 12 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 12 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.